Pipes Hochuli wrote:late to the party, but props to bhaw in this thread.

IMO, anyone beyond a teenager that still uses the word in this discussion is a dolt that I wouldn't like to be associated with. A total display of stupidity and ignorance.

You must be old, otherwise you would know that, thanks to excessive usage by ignorant and dumb teens, the word does not mean what it means anymore.

I'm 26, which means I'm old enough to know a)the history behind the word, b) you never know who's listening.

Also, who's judge and jury to say that "the word does not mean what it means anymore?" I still find it offensive. I'm not gay, but I have 2 close friends that are, I would never use that word around them.

Exactly. This "generational" stuff is utter BS. Words do change their meaning, but it's a dynamic process that happens over time. You can't just take a word and claim that is has a new meaning all of a sudden, as if language was arbitrary. It is not.

Physical_Graffiti wrote:It's more like "I'm too sensitive to think about what's actually being said to fully grasp it". If I were to refer to DJs as "spinsters" older women shouldn't be offended by it, because it literally has nothing to do with them.

You do realize to call an older single woman a "spinster" isn't a good idea, right? It's not exactly a term of endearment...

the only thing else that i'm going to say, is that Avery spends a lot of time acting like a F-word 2.0, and i'm sure its not the first time its been thrown at him. if you want to throw a fit about it, oh well.

Gaucho wrote:Exactly. This "generational" stuff is utter BS. Words do change their meaning, but it's a dynamic process that happens over time. You can't just take a word and claim that is has a new meaning all of a sudden, as if language was arbitrary. It is not.

Lol... Simmonds is such scum. When called to the league office, he suddenly remembers everything he said (contrary to his prior statements) and expressly denies saying the word. Everyone else in the world can see what he said and he denies it.

No action by the league, which I think is fine. But the sympathy I felt for this guy from the banana throwing is totally gone.

Also... in regards to the banana throw, it does not qualify as a hate crime because there was no "mischief" as they word it. The banana hit the ice so it does not qualify. They didn't expressly say it, but I took that as implying that had it hit Simmonds, it could qualify as a hate crime.

Laws vary from state to state or in this case province to province. What passes for disorderly conduct or mischief in one place might not in another.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Ontario try to revise their definition of mischief. The London police have gone to a lot of trouble to publicize this crime and subsequent arrest. If somebody threw the banana at a white player it never would have been known by anybody not in attendance that evening.

doublem wrote:bhaw, is Cooke scum too? I want to know what players you think are scum?

Give me an instance you want me to review and I will give you my scum-o-meter reading, if you so please.

Perhaps you would prefer if I called Simmonds a lying coward who is too much of a **** to own up to what he said? Referring to this instance, of course.

If you are trying to pin me into the "you're being a homer" scenario, I'll have you know that there are many players we have employed over the years who I disliked the way they played but glad they were with us and not against us.

Draftnik wrote:Laws vary from state to state or in this case province to province. What passes for disorderly conduct or mischief in one place might not in another.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Ontario try to revise their definition of mischief. The London police have gone to a lot of trouble to publicize this crime and subsequent arrest. If somebody threw the banana at a white player it never would have been known by anybody not in attendance that evening.

I was just pointing out what was reported for comment. I know it was being discussed whether or not it qualified for hate crime. One of the lawyers involved said it did not qualify as one.

doublem wrote:bhaw, is Cooke scum too? I want to know what players you think are scum?

Give me an instance you want me to review and I will give you my scum-o-meter reading, if you so please.

Perhaps you would prefer if I called Simmonds a lying coward who is too much of a **** to own up to what he said? Referring to this instance, of course.

If you are trying to pin me into the "you're being a homer" scenario, I'll have you know that there are many players we have employed over the years who I disliked the way they played but glad they were with us and not against us.

The hit itself was pretty scummy (drilling a dude from the blindside in the head). I don't remember how he reacted in the media though, nor do I have quotes of how he responded to league officials afterwards. If he owned up to it, he's still fairly scummy for hitting Savard like that to begin with. If he played dumb or pulled what Simmonds did ("Come on, it's Marc freaking Savard! He deserved it!"), he drops a few notches. But in the end it's a different playing field of scum. Cooke didn't hit him then call him a mentally challenged cripple.

As a matter of fact the two scenarios are nothing alike other than show that both guys are not the best human beings.